Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Error handling] Evaluate MCAD code base for better error handling #613

Open
asm582 opened this issue Aug 28, 2023 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #694
Open

[Error handling] Evaluate MCAD code base for better error handling #613

asm582 opened this issue Aug 28, 2023 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #694
Assignees

Comments

@asm582
Copy link
Member

asm582 commented Aug 28, 2023

WHY

This change is needed to retry or appropriately update etcd

WHAT

Review code base for error handling scenarios

HOW

Make relevant code changes and print appropriate error strings.

TESTS

Write additional tests for error handling

DONE

Increase in test cases that support error handling use case.

@Fiona-Waters Fiona-Waters self-assigned this Oct 17, 2023
@Fiona-Waters
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @asm582, just a question about this issue which I have started working on. Is it appropriate to update some functions to return errors, so that we can catch the errors when the functions are called or do we just want to add logging of errors for other function calls inside the functions?
I just don't want to many any changes that could effect others using MCAD if that's not what is required. Please let me know what you think. Thank you.

@asm582
Copy link
Member Author

asm582 commented Oct 27, 2023

Hi @Fiona-Waters , I think it's a good idea to start logging errors for now and then we can design later how we can gracefully handle errors.

@Fiona-Waters Fiona-Waters linked a pull request Nov 23, 2023 that will close this issue
4 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: In Progress
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants